A review of the evidence in the Archives Of Disease in Childhood says children’s obsession with TV, computers and screen games is causing developmental damage as well as long-term physical harm. Doctors at the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, which co-owns the journal with the British Medical Journal group, say they are concerned. Guidelines in the US, Canada and Australia already urge limits on children’s screen time, but there are none yet in Britain.

The review was written by psychologist Dr Aric Sigman, author of a book on the subject, following a speech he gave to the RCPCH’s annual conference. On average, he says, a British teenager spends six hours a day looking at screens at home – not including any time at school. In North America, it is nearer eight hours. But, says Sigman, negative effects on health kick in after about two hours of sitting still, with increased long-term risks of obesity and heart problems.

The critical time for brain growth is the first three years of life, he says. That is when babies and small children need to interact with their parents, eye to eye, and not with a screen.

Prof Mitch Blair, officer for health promotion at the college, said: “Whether it’s mobile phones, games consoles, TVs or laptops, advances in technology mean children are exposed to screens for longer amounts of time than ever before. We are becoming increasingly concerned, as are paediatricians in several other countries, as to how this affects the rapidly developing brain in children and young people.”

The US department of health and human services now specifically cites the reduction of screen time as a health priority, aiming “to increase the proportion of children aged 0 to two years who view no television or videos on an average weekday” and increase the proportion of older children up to 18 who have no more than two hours’ screen time a day.

Sigman goes further, suggesting no screen time for the under-threes, rising gradually to a maximum of two hours for the over-16s. Parents should “encourage” no screens in the bedroom, he says, and be aware that their own viewing habits will influence their children.

But what can you do?

The RCPH’s Professor Blair said there were some simple steps parents could take, “such as limiting toddler exposure as much as possible, keeping TVs and computers out of children’s bedrooms, restricting prolonged periods of screen time (we would recommend less than two hours a day) and choosing programmes that have an educational element.”

But Justine Roberts, co-founder of Mumsnet, said it was hard for parents to compete with technology. “It would be great if someone could invent a lock that could automatically ensure a daily shut down of all the different devices in and around the home after a designated period. Until such a thing is invented, it’s going to be an ongoing battle to keep on top of everything,” she said.

Any thoughts from parents? Is the no TV ideal possible? Is it realistic? Is it even desirable?

TV makes a great babysitter but depending on what children are watching it can either be like getting a teacher to babysit or a foul mouthed moron. Sometimes as a parent you need a babysitter, like when you’re on your own with a child and need to make a phone call, cook dinner or use the bathroom, then TV is handy.

“But Justine Roberts, co-founder of Mumsnet, said it was hard for parents to compete with technology.”

Oh no it isn’t! It’s a question of who is in charge, that’s all: the parent or the BBC (or ITV, or Pixar, but you get my drift).

In our house, we said who and what was welcome while the children were growing up, not people informed by the values of the press and TV. And (sorry Tonia) TV was NEVER a babysitter, even for 30 seconds.

I think the age/hours equation in the post over-prescriptive: by the time our children were eight or nine the idea of sometimes watching TV for a couple of hours (eg a film, on ITV, with adverts) certainly didn’t feel like child abuse, but the important thing is that parents are responsible and must take responsibility for their children’s development, and not constantly find ways of palming that responsibility of onto others.

I grew up before the growth of the computer age (inthe 1960’s) when the only screen available to watch was a black and white television. My parents were not terribly strict, but on one issue they didn’t budge. I was allowed to watch a certain amount of TV and then that was it….no more. I did me no harm as I found other things to interest me. I don’t have any children but, if I did, I would be inclined to limit their exposure to screens of the varying types and encourage them to have a more balanced life, reading books does no harm nor, for that matter, does playing sports.
I hope that doesn’t make me sound terribly reactionary to technology and old fashioned.

Has any research been done as to what type of programme children watch? Most children’s TV is mindless, but the CBeebies channel is highly educational. Our little one watches it while we are getting breakfast and doing other morning chores, and she has learned an awful lot from it. Yes, we feel guilty at not giving her the attention she needs, but I think this second best option is better than having her just sitting around bored to tears.

My son learnt to read using Jolly Phonics DVDs and learnt Maths on Mathletics web site (he’s now 10 and has been accelerated 3 years for Maths). I’ve also used the TV over the years to pass on the faith

About this blog

Looking across the landscape of contemporary culture - at the arts, science, religion, politics, philosophy; sorting through the jumble; seeing what stands out, what unsettles, what intrigues, what connects, what sheds light. Father Stephen Wang is a Catholic priest in the Diocese of Westminster, London. He is currently Senior University Chaplain, based at Newman House Catholic Chaplaincy. [Banner photo with kind permission of Matthew Powell]

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Images Policy

As far as I know none of the image use in this blog is against copyright law. Images copied here are either (i) my own or (ii) out of copyright or (iii) used under a Creative Commons License [CCL], which means (roughly, usually) that the photographer (or copyright owner) has agreed the unedited image can be used non-commercially with proper attribution. If I mark an image as CCL it means that I have used the image under a CCL; it does not mean that I am now licensing this image with a CCL.